Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Heywood, Nov 15, 2012.
Yes we've been through this:
1. The AD is feeding this to media outlets to control the message, and undermine the outrage that will happen after Coach Embree is officially retained.
2. There is NOTHING in that data that accounts for a team with CU's performance this year. Our situation is almost unprecedented. Furthermore, there are plenty of situations, where replacing a coach helped in the long term.
I love the comments at the end of the article:
Oh ****!! LOL. It IS the same professor!!! Michael Barry is the same guy who picked Romney to win the election. Maybe this guy needs to consider another career path.
I would just like to take a moment to say that calling out the validity of the research findings of academics on a sports fan message board loses a tiny bit of credibility while reinforcing a stereotype they have of us when the thread title describes these academics as "proffesors".
It is what the Sports Information Director would term a "magic moment."
I just told a friend of mine that went to UCLA that they'd be better off with Rick right now.
Damn. I am going to have to up my internet posting qc work. That is three call outs this moth.
Well, I will take a moment to criticize the validity of this "research," user proper spelling and sh*t
"the researchers in 2008 began using a matching technique to compare those teams to similarly positioned teams that didn't fire coaches. Entry conditions were factored into the effects of a coaching change, according to the research team, and win-loss record was the only dependent variable studied."
I don't know exactly what an "entry condition" is. Presumably, they are talking about initial conditions. They would be right to focus on this issue because the findings from system's theory and complexity theory demonstrate that initial conditions and complex feedback mechanisms dominate over those "controlled factors"
This kind of research, ignorant of the complex adaptive forces shaping the system under question, is why political science is not considered a science by people outside of that discipline. And it doesn't even require waiting for the predictions to be falsified by events, like Romney's predicted landslide win, to know it.
Separate names with a comma.